I have found that the stance against homosexuality - and in many other "biblical sins" - in almost all of the religions of the world is based on writings in their holy books.

As the word that is accepted as the word of their Gods is either said to be spoken directly to the humans that report it, ( and in many of these cases these "conduits" from the Gods are found to simply be schizophrenic ), then the word that is written by the fallible human scribes of old into these holy books is at risk of being seen as the flawed interpretation of what these scribes and prophets said they know and found to be true.

The faithful - as in all of the details surrounding faith - believe in their faith because faith requires no proof and when they act on what they find in their holy books, ( although none of the contents of these books has ever been proven to be right or accurate in fact ), their behaviour, as a result, is based on myth rather than even on secular laws. In other words, because their faith dictates that everything that is in these holy books must be true, what they find there that connects to "sin" must also be true.

I have always felt that as far as the laws of the land that I live in should never be based on religious faith, I can only take the stance that if these laws ARE in any way influenced by religion then they are not laws that can apply to everybody or that can be applied to any kind of secular rules or regulations.

But a pervert is exactly what the dictionary says and there can be no doubt about it, or you start changing the meaning of every word to suit your own interpretation.

That's just it, polyglide, the meaning HAS changed. Calling anyone a "pervert" could easily be construed as an insult - and rightly so. The word is not neutral ... it is intensely negative.

A homosexual may not like being called a pervert and no doubt a theif does not like being called a theif but thats life.as we know it.

You become a thief. You choose to rob. You do not become a homosexual nor do you choose to be one. Calling someone a thief is insulting what the person chose to become. Calling someone a pervert is insulting who the person is.

Homosexuality is as bound to a person as ethnicity, national origin, or gender. As such, racial slurs or misogynistic comments are considered insults. Thus it should also be with words like "pervert" directed toward homosexuals. It is not a mental disorder, it is not a disease, and it is obviously natural or it wouldn't exist. Would nature create that which is unnatural? That wouldn't make much sense, would it?

Let us face the awful truth: Polyglide is a homophobe, which effects everyone because homophobia is NOT just about the persecution of gay people, it is also about the persecution of people 'suspected' of being gay.

A recent legal case that was upheld in the high court, involved a married heterosexual guy who had been the subject of homophobic verbal abuse and discrimination perpetrated by a workplace bully.

The law says, now, that it does not matter whether you are straight or gay, that homophobic abuse, even for perceived homosexuality (or when the expressed homophobia is issued even though the abuser knows their victim is not gay), is is a form of, de facto, verbal abuse based on sexual proclivity.

So, the manifestation of homophobia is, in a sense, a detail here, what is paramount is that ALL offensive verbal abuse of ALL kinds is not acceptable. in law, within any situation.

Having said that I will not be suing my family members for calling me a poof!

Shirina wrote:Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.

Indeed, the term 'faggot' has direct etymological connotations drawn from a former historical imperative to quite literally burn gay men alive (as you would a faggot of wood and approved by the church) - as they did to women who murdered their husbands (up until the first quarter of the 17th century).

Last edited by AwfulTruth on Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

Indeed, the term 'faggot' has direct etymological connotations drawn from a former historical imperative to quite literally burn gay men alive (as you would a faggot of wood andapproved by the church) -as they did to women who murdered their husbands (up until the first quarter of the 17th century).

You may need your bottom smacking; although I could be arrested for physical assault so I'd better back-peddle on that one!

Last time I had my bottom smacked was with a cane, and six of the best. No, I'm not a masochist. It was sixty+ years ago at school. At assembly we were told 'boys are not to throw snowballs into the girls playground'. My memory was bad even at that age.

I certainly am not a homofobic, I am, a realist, you can argue till dooms day [maybe not now far off] but homosexuality is a perversion or you could make exactly the same claim for any other perversion and say nature made them that way, it has gone on since history began but so has murder, child abuse and even animal abuse but that does not make it right, now don't some bright spark come along saying I am intimating that homosexuality is the same as either or any but it is nevertheless a perversion, however brought about.

"You become a thief. You choose to rob. You do not become a homosexual nor do you choose to be one."

Shirina - has hit the nail precisely on the head here, a person who is born with ginger hair ocassionaly has to put up with been called certain names, a person born with a squint or a cleft lip ( hair lip ) will no doubt get called names, particularly at school.

No one chooses to be homosexual, it is an act of nature, and as such it cannot ever be justified to call homosexual people nasty names, or to discriminate against them, it would be the equivelant of poking fun at a disabled person.

A pervert is someone who deviates from the norm, a person whos behaviour is considered unorthodox, it usualy means repulsive or obsessive behaviour; As gay / homosexual people are now considered equal in law to everyone else, and as they have rights which protect them from discrimination, then they cannot possibly be described as "perverts".

polyglide wrote:I certainly am not a homofobic, I am, a realist, you can argue till dooms day [maybe not now far off] but homosexuality is a perversion or you could make exactly the same claim for any other perversion and say nature made them that way, it has gone on since history began but so has murder, child abuse and even animal abuse but that does not make it right, now don't some bright spark come along saying I am intimating that homosexuality is the same as either or any but it is nevertheless a perversion, however brought about.

With respect I would suggest that your are not a realist, but obsessed with the fact of Homosexuality being a perversion.

A realist would understand that Homosexuality is here, always has been, always will be.

A realist would understand that it is part of someones makeup. It is not learnt, but is natural.

A realist would understand that whatever they say will not change anything. To continue to insist that people are perverted because you think they are is an obsession.

I have said before I do not understand homosexuality because I am not one. But I do know that they are human beings like you and me.

There are other people in the world that we should be more concerned about.

Last edited by trevorw2539 on Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:00 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Bad phrasing)

now don't some bright spark come along saying I am intimating that homosexuality is the same as either

Regardless of what you may be intimating, I do find it disturbing that the anti-gay argument almost invariably includes comparisons between gays and the worst society has to offer - murderers, pedophiles, child abusers, et. al.

polyglide wrote:I certainly am not a homofobic, I am, a realist, you can argue till dooms day [maybe not now far off] but homosexuality is a perversion or you could make exactly the same claim for any other perversion and say nature made them that way, it has gone on since history began but so has murder, child abuse and even animal abuse but that does not make it right, now don't some bright spark come along saying I am intimating that homosexuality is the same as either or any but it is nevertheless a perversion, however brought about.

Polygrip, I order to stop drinking the Sanatogen tonic wine and start reading the bit in the NT where is says about not casting stones?

On a more serious note, human rights tenets inform us that sometimes definitions and semantics can still be a form of abuse - because they offend others. However, please have your views - I cannot stop you from holding any view.

Finally, you think I am a pervert, OK, and so with that apocryphal epithet fully expressed by you, perhaps you can just agree to disagree?

I am sure you must have some pragmatism in that intellect of your...enough said.

Shirina wrote:Etymological fallacy – which reasons that the original or historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its actual present-day meaning.

Languages evolve through everyday use, and a word means what the majority agree it to mean at a point in time. Chaucer's or Shakespeare's English are miles away from 21st. Century usage, but no less valid. Their vocabulary did not cover aeroplanes, automobiles, television or email but are nevertheless valuable for their insights into human nature, which is unchanging.

The interesting part is that people who felt themselves to be superior to others, usually got their come-uppance in the Third Act. It's comforting to think that may still apply.

It kind of reminds me of "guy talk" at a bar or pub. Listening to them talk about a woman's more salient features would make a sailor blush. That's fine when hanging out with the guys, but if the same kind of talk was used on a woman - especially while on a date - the vast majority of females would be none too pleased. Having one's breasts referred to as "jugs" and being told, "I'd do you in a heartbeat" is pretty disrespectful. It's all about knowing what to say and when to say it ... and to whom. Pretty simple stuff.

He would likely have never said such a thing to a woman, nor would any self-respecting man with even an ounce of manners and class...even if he thought it. My guess it's why his American wife came for a holiday with a girlfriend, stumbled on the little zoo, and never went home.

That kind of 'guy talk' at a bar or pub?That's disrespectful and in poor taste as well...IMO...and I'm no groveller to feminists.Mommy dearest would not have liked me saying it, so I just passed and went straight home after work, and had better things to do at weekends.She told me to always treat [and speak about] 'girls' as I would my little sister.

I have just read where the conclusion some scientists have come to is that a person who abuses children cannot help it because it is in their DNA and it is impossible to change their ways even were they wanting to.

This opens a completely new can of worms and the same must be applicable to many other activities, rape, murder, etc;etc;

If these poor souls are not responsible for their actions then just what is the solution ?.

This opens a completely new can of worms and the same must be applicable to many other activities, rape, murder, etc;etc;

Here we go again, connecting gays with the worst society has to offer.

There are many things people do that they cannot "help" but do. For example - adrenalin junkies. These are the people who always have to test their limits with extreme activities like mountain climbing, skydiving, bunjee and base jumping, etc. But we don't stop them from doing so unless they pose a danger to others. That's right ... a danger to others. We do not ban car racing altogether, we only ban it when it takes place on public streets.

Since being gay does not pose a danger to anyone, there is no logical reason for restricting their rights or banning it outright (as some US states have been trying to do). Whether people are gay because of their genetic make-up or because they make a conscious choice is irrelevant. In a truly free society, there should be no laws restricting or banning something simply because the majority doesn't like it or because the majority's religion condemns it. Those simply aren't good enough reasons.

As far as I know, no one has ever been killed or suffered physical harm because they glimpsed a gay couple holding hands, and no one in any gay marriage states have keeled over and died because a gay couple somewhere tied the knot.

polyglide wrote:I have just read where the conclusion some scientists have come to is that a person who abuses children cannot help it because it is in their DNA and it is impossible to change their ways even were they wanting to.

This opens a completely new can of worms and the same must be applicable to many other activities, rape, murder, etc;etc;

If these poor souls are not responsible for their actions then just what is the solution ?.

Excellent, Polyglide, just the kind of ethos the Nazi party would have approved of with such great gusto!

What an intelligent, provocative and extravagantly bigoted post!

'Bravo!' I hear all the morally bankrupt rabble cry; 'Death to them!' I hear the old women knitting at the foot of the guillotine; 'Burn them!' I hear the hanging mob scream as they toss another 'faggot' on the fire of hatred, cruelty and mindless thuggery!

Polyglide - and I shall speak as I find - you are really doing this for the hell of it - are you not?

Posting such incendiary excrement that makes common sense look like pure gold dust is so elevating for humanity, surely?!

Question: Just what constructive, positive reasons are there behind your actions in attempting to besmirch, condemn and vilify gay people by throwing your latest bomb into the fires of discourse?

Is it your humanitarian, just and reasonable intentions? Or is it something baser, lesser or even something far more sinister? I wonder...

Polyglide, you have posted, you have been judged, and it is fair to say that my reasoned judgement errs on the side of fairness by calling into question your qualifications as a human being, as a debater and as a promulgator of your own philosophy. But, just what kind of a philosopher are you?

We are all entitled to our opinion, Polyglide, so let us just stick to the topic and NOT the politics of death, condemnation and fascistic sentiment that YOU have been manifesting - and clearly so!

Personally I think your motives are a disgrace to debating, here or anywhere else. That is my reasoned judgement.

I rest my case mi-lord!

Last edited by AwfulTruth on Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:07 am; edited 1 time in total

If "creatures" do not want to abide by the rules of a peaceful society, then there is no place for them in said society.

For myself, I have NOT provided society with offspring just for some "poor soul" to anihilate (however quickly or slowly!

My family are NOT foils to be used and abused by psychiatrists mistakes!

Astra

This thread is clearly not about capital punishment, so I must ask you this question: Why did you respond to Polyglide's post, and attempt to ostensibly integrate, or even actively equate by association, a line that speaks of annihilation?

Bearing in mind the history of persecution, that included the torture, murder and annihilation of gay people, is this not an insensitive and questionable action?

Put me right if I am wrong but I can only draw an interim conclusion on what you have actually posted, its context and why it might be inappropriate or even inflammatory.